A fact from Florence Baker appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 October 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
I found it very confusing that the author has two people named Baked in the text and does not bother to identify which is which. In some cases is obvious by the context but not in others. E.g. in the sentence "This was in line with an agreement they made with Baker." it is not clear if they made the agreement with Samuel baker or with Florence Baker herself.
I would suggest that it should be clear in all sentences who is who. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.125.70 (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually wondering about when they got married since the article refers to them as husband and wife in the history before they are married. Did they live as husband and wife before being legally married (or at least a wedding that English law would recognize)? --Erp (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to first question: without reading the article, a lone "Baker" would refer to the article subject (Florence), while other people named Baker needed a surname when mentioned, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at fixing the Baker dabs. As for the wedding I (pov) think there was only one although there was tales that there had been another (which would have pleased the Queen et al). It could be that Florence was bought as a slave by Samueul as there are various versions of her early life (including one in which her father may have lived). However Florence is obviously a poor witness on her own early life and they both had reasons to clear up any moral ambiguities over her being under-age or a traded slave. However they don't appear to have got the same story each time or authors have got carried away with the narrative and filled in the details. Do feel free to just fix it. Victuallers (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Born a slave" in the infobox appears to be an error. Usually, I would just fix this but I think someone familiar with the article probably should do this since it has a DYK today. The DYK is in line with the text of the article, from which the infobox phrase differs. Donner60 (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A name like Maria Florica could absolutely not be given in a Hungarian family of the time. Moreover, the surname Sas (meaning "German from Transylvania") is unlikely to belong to an actual Sas, there were too many of them, and even less plausible is the "von Sas" version, sounding ridicule so, most likely, she came from a Romanian family which had Germans in the lineage. In addition to that, the so-called "marauders leader Ioan Axente Sever " stood a trial, was declared innocent and later attributed the highest honors by the Emperor, remaining in the important political ranks until his 80’s; therefore, the circumstances of her remaining orphan are to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
